Barney Frank

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi).

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I strongly support the effort by my colleague from California. I would say to the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee that it's certainly the case that, once the society through which democratic processes has determined what it wants to do in a military area, then we need the technical advice from the military experts. But there is a prior question with regard to Afghanistan: Should we be staying there? It wasn't up to the military--and they never claimed that it was--to go in on their own. They went in pursuant to a vote of this House and of the Senate. It is the duty of the Members of this House to decide whether, in taking all of the factors into account, the time has come to wind it down or not. Once a decision is made, then we listen to the military. Clearly, what is at stake here in this amendment is not simply a technical question of the way in which the logistics of a drawdown are handled but, really, whether or not the House wants to affirm that the time has come to begin a steady withdrawal. I might also add I would like to go more quickly than this amendment would allow, but we probably won't have the votes for that. I disagree with the notion that this is a matter on which the elected representatives of the American people must defer to military experts. Yes, we will once we have made the democratic decision about what to do. But with all of the factors taken into account, the time has come, just as this House authorized the military to go in, to reaffirm the decision that the time has come to begin to withdraw. So I very much support the gentleman's amendment in that particular context. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I submit for the Record a June 28 article from The Hill: But U.S. dominance in every dimension of military power is clear. In recent years we have been building ``strategic depth'' into this dominance without regard to its costs--to our Treasury and to our other priorities. A responsible rollback of our military budget is achievable with no sacrifice to our security. The author is Lawrence Wilkerson, chief of staff to Colin Powell when he was Secretary of State, and he was special assistant to Colin Powell when General Powell was chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. So, yes, there were times when I think: let's take some advice from some military experts. [From The Hill, June 28, 2012] The Executive Viewpoint--Time To Bite the Bullet (By Lawrence Wilkerson) Though the U.S. budget process has been going through the motions in 2012, the real action will take place at the end of the year, when several budget overhaul strategies will converge. Around town, the train wreck metaphor is getting the most use to describe what will happen. But whatever does happen, it is certain that large cuts are coming. Those cuts come as three wars--Afghanistan, Iraq and the global war on terror--are driving national security spending to levels not seen since World War II. Since these wars have been paid for by borrowing, they have contributed mightily to our budget deficit and diverted resources from other investments in our domestic strength. It is time for a responsible build-down of the post-9/11 build-up. But an extraordinary feature of the dysfunctional policies of Washington is the strenuous expenditure of time and money devoted to ensuring this doesn't happen. Most of this intensity has focused on exempting the military budget from the coming sequestration of funds mandated by current law. This is unwise, because the military--or better said, the national security account--can and should contribute to our getting our fiscal house in order. In fact, we could cut our national security budget by a trillion dollars over the next decade without jeopardizing our security. Moreover, we could rebalance that budget as we cut and actually enhance our security. The national security budget includes the Intelligence, Veterans Affairs and Homeland Security agencies, as well as bureaus dealing with international affairs and nuclear weapons issues (mostly in the Department of Energy) and, of course, the Pentagon. Last year the total was about $1.2 trillion. The huge component in that budget is the Pentagon, at more than 50 percent of the total spending. So that is where everyone concentrates what he or she wants to cut, keep or increase. That's where most of the rhetoric is expended, too. But this view is myopic. National security is composed as much of good intelligence and competent diplomacy as it is of bombs, bullets and bayonets; indeed, one hopes more so. Thus, looking at the national security budget as a whole, with all its components, demonstrates clearly that it is out of balance. Too much money is going to the iron and steel part of the budget and too little to the velvet glove. That's the first problem that needs correcting, the balance. The second is the Pentagon. As the largest item by far in the discretionary budget. not to mention in the security budget, Pentagon spending has the largest influence over the reducing/rebalancing equation. The United States began the new millennium with a string of military budget increases, paid for by borrowing, that swelled the deficit while bringing us to the highest levels of Pentagon spending since World War II. Our current military expenditures account for more than half of the world's total. We spend as much as the next 17 countries put together, most of them our allies. And we spend more in real terms now than we did on average when we did have a formidable adversary-- the Soviet Union--that was spending about as much as we were and arguably constituted an existential threat to America. No such threat exists today, nor can we see a comparable one in the future, China's rise notwithstanding. Guaranteeing perfect security is impossible. But U.S. dominance in every dimension of military power is clear. In recent years we have been building ``strategic depth'' into this dominance without regard to its costs--to our treasury and to our other priorities. A responsible rollback of our military budget is achievable with no sacrifice to our security. The specifics of this judicious rollback are contained in the Unified Security Budget (USB) published by the Institute for Policy Studies and the Center for American Progress, a budget I helped compile. Not only does this USB cut a trillion dollars over 10 years, it rebalances the budget so that the steel and the glove are in better proportions. It is time for wise men and women to put partisanship aside, ignore the siren calls of defense contractors, stop taking counsel of their fears and get down to business with the national security budget. No aspect of the federal budget should be exempt from helping the nation get its fiscal act together. This soldier of 31 years knows that national security--including the Pentagon--can join this effort with no danger to the republic.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I am very proud of the members of my family who have served this country in wartime. My cousin Arthur Cozewith, has remained a vigorous advocate for fair treatment for all of our veterans. On Memorial Day this year, he was the guest speaker after the parade in his hometown of Pearl River, New York, and he shared with me the remarks he made on that occasion. I grew up listening to Arthur's stories of what he and the others went through during World War II, including the experience of prisoners of war, and I continue to be inspired by his determination to see that others who serve are treated the way they should be treated by a nation that should be grateful, and through its gratitude helps define our greatness. Mr. Speaker, as an expression of family pride and in agreement with his message, I ask that the eloquent remarks of my cousin Arthur Cozewith be printed here as a reminder to us as we legislate this year on matters affecting veterans of how important our duty is. I would like to thank Honorable Judge and Vietnam War flyer extraordinaire Paul Phinney III for the Honor on this Memorial Day of presenting some of my memories, thoughts and thanks related to the sacrifices made by our veterans. At the age of 18, in November 1942, I enlisted in the U.S. Army and served during WWII as a rifleman in Co. F, 333rd Infantry Regiment of the 84th Division, participating in the battle for Europe. Now, 67 years after the end of WWII, I still remember the days of blood, mud and hot steel and the impact of such days on my buddies, my friends and my relatives serving in the armed forces. I still remember my Army buddy, 19-year-old Bob Koebler, killed in action on Dec. 2, 1944, my Uncle David Golush who died of wounds received during the battle for Sicily and my high school friend, Bill Miller, who died when his bomber crashed. I remember that there were exactly 34 bunks in a German reinforced concrete fortification because a wounded American soldier occupied each one. I remember the mistreatment and slow starvation of Americans who were POW's. I remember all the things I don't want to remember. As I remember, I readily relate to those veterans who sacrificed body and mind during WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Bosnia, Gulf Storm, Iraq, Afghanistan and the wars before and in- between to preserve this great country we live in--the United States of America. I am forever grateful for those sacrifices, which now enable my children, grandchildren and great grandchildren to live with equality and freedom. I also remember that during WWII, our country acted like a sleeping giant who had been rudely awakened. Americans were united as one, as close together as the fingers in a closed fist. Our decisions were based on one consideration--what was best for America. ``What is in it for me'' was not a permissible thought. We accepted rationing, censorship and lack of goods in the stores. We grew our own vegetables in victory gardens, we conserved everything, we had air raid drills and bought E bonds to save our economy and onward the list goes--winning was not only our sole objective, but also our only option in order to preserve our freedom. As we face the challenges of today and the new challenges to come, I wonder if we can again work in unity for the best interests of the country. Will we be able to pass along to future generations the same opportunities we were provided by those who sacrificed their lives for all that is great about America? To ensure a bright future for our country, I ask all of you not to forget that these sacrifices led to our resulting good fortune. Adopt a creed that fits within President John Kennedy's words, ``Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.'' Insist that those in power, both elected and non elected, act in a manner that puts country first. Keep in mind the truth in the adage ``United we stand . . . divided we fall.'' Become and remain proactive in promoting and implementing these ideals after today's remembrances have gone by. And finally, show your appreciation to the Veteran Community. If you are an uncommitted eligible Veteran, Pearl River American Legion Post 329 and VFW post 7370 welcomes you to join us as we reach out to Veterans and the community at large. Remember our war disabled veterans and work to alleviate their on going pain and suffering by insisting that our Congress and Veterans Administration eliminate an antiquated processing system which results in delaying claims in some cases for more than a year. Thank you for listening. G-d Bless us all and G-d Bless America. --Arthur Cozewith

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, on Saturday, June 9th, I will have the honor of addressing the Congregation and friends of Agudath Achim and Jewish Communnity House in the City of Taunton, which I have been privileged to represent for these past 10 years. It will not be my first appearance at this temple, which is an important institution in the Greater Taunton Area. But this will be a meeting of particular significance, because it is part of a celebration of the Centennial Anniversary of this congregation. Mr. Speaker, on May 7th, the Taunton Gazette published an article about Agudath Achim, which is a good summary of the work it does and the role it has played in the community. I can attest to the work that Agudath Achim does, both for the Jewish community, and for the broader society--for example, it was the host for the most recent Martin Luther King Day Interfaith Observation in Taunton. Mr. Speaker, because this is an example of how an institution serves both the needs of its own people and the society at large, and because the Taunton Gazette did a very good job of describing this, I ask that the article from the Taunton Gazette be printed here, and I ask all Members to join me in congratulating this congregation and the work that they do. (By Marc Larocque--Taunton Gazette Staff Reporter) Taunton--The Congregation Agudath Achim marked 100 years in the city with a rededication ceremony held at the synagogue this weekend, featuring several guest speakers who talked about their years as part of the Jewish community in Greater Taunton. ``We had a chance for people of all ages to participate,'' Rabbi Anne Heath said. ``The rededication was a chance for us to acknowledge all of our ancestors over the past 100 years and rededicate ourselves, as much as rededicating the building to continue to be a home for the Jewish community for the greater Taunton area. There was no champagne bottle broken or major renovations, but we recognized that this has been the religious and cultural home for generations of Jewish people from the area.'' Heath said the rededication was a chance to recognize some of the goodwill that has come as a product of the Congregation Agudath Achim throughout the last century. ``The synagogue has been a focal point for Jews to gather, to study, to pray, and to support each other in good times and bad,'' Heath said. ``It's a base of operation or a home so that many of our members are involved in, doing a lot of good works and good deeds throughout the community. It gives us a chance to socialize and celebrate holidays. Like many other organizations, especially religious ones, it helps us sustain ourselves as a community.'' Taunton resident Mike Thurman said that the rededication was a chance to realize just how much the synagogue has enriched his family and many others, bringing everyone together, creating a great sense of community. ``It kind of brought back memories of when we first joined,'' Thurman said. ``Some of the people who came have gotten older and have moved away. It was nice to see them again.'' Thurman, a Milton native, moved to the Taunton area in 1975. His wife soon discovered the synagogue through word of mouth, bringing the family into the fold. ``The synagogue is very family oriented,'' Thurman said. ``The congregation is small enough that we know everyone. You end up knowing how everyone's children are growing up, having their bar mitzvah parties. My four daughters had their bat mitzvahs there. It's good to have the synagogue in your life. Basically, it's like having an extended family. Everybody knows everybody. It's a generational thing. We're very fortunate.'' On June 30, there will be a reunion celebration for Congregation Agudath Achim. It is another event as part of the congregation's centennial celebrations. Congressman Barney Frank is also scheduled to be a special guest speaker at a June 9 event with services starting at 9 a.m. While the congregation has grown with the times--at one point it was an Orthodox synagogue in which men were separated from the women, while now it is a more modern and independent organization--the mission remains the same, Rabbi Heath said. Heath said that she hopes the next century will be one in which the Congregation Agudath Achim will reach further into the community, touching the lives of many using the religious teachings of Judaism. ``I think one of the most important things for our Jewish community, like all other religious communities, is meet people where they are, find out what's going on in their lives, and to find out what we have to offer to support people where they need it,'' Heath said. ``That's part of the rededication and recommitment. Judaism has a strong ethical component. We believe the teachings of Judaism can support that, whether for a young person, a parent, an empty nester, dealing with all different kinds of issues. Our teachings and availability of community will play a big role. It's part of the path that we really take into the future.''

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, this is a bill that illustrates an old saying: Adding insult to injury. The insult is the terms under which we are debating this vast commitment of taxpayer dollars to the most important issue we have--defense. People will be debating at 11 o'clock tonight, in 5 minutes on a side, very significant issues. We had a few minutes to debate the question of Afghanistan. My colleague, Ms. Lee, and some Republicans will join to try to bring this budget number down to where it should be--$8 billion at least, back to the number of the agreement. And they will have 5 minutes in which to do it. That's outrageous. Also, it's important to note if this bill goes through, it is a statement that efforts to improve the quality of life at home will be sacrificed to foreign adventures that are ill-fated in many cases. I read a letter from the chairman of the committee to the Secretary of Defense. He said, Mr. Secretary, if we increase spending here, it won't come out of other national security accounts. Of course not. It will come out of Medicare. It will come out of Medicaid. It will come out of efforts to protect the environment. It will come out of police on our streets. There is an excess of money here. Afghanistan is a good example. A commitment of 68,000 troops. The gentleman from California complained about what the gentleman from Washington said. It sounded the same to me. They put down 68,000 troops, dictating to the Commander in Chief-- or trying to--what it should be. There is an effort going on in Afghanistan which has gone far beyond what was justified by our national security. There is a commitment to spend more than is necessary on nuclear weapons when the military hasn't asked for them. There are weapons systems here the Pentagon didn't want. And where does it come from? It comes from everything we try to do to improve the quality of life at home. This is an attack on our ability to provide the funding that America needs for a decent set of conditions here. No one is opposing adequate national defense. This continues a pattern of overspending. I remember, again, what Rupert Murdoch's Wall Street Journal said, hailing the Republican budget, which this is carrying out. It protects defense so they can cut Medicare and Medicaid and other domestic programs. It's too bad we don't have a decent amount of time to expose the extent to which that is going on.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, the Republican approach does some cutting, but it does even more shifting. I agreed with The Wall Street Journal editorial of a few weeks ago, which praised the gentleman from Wisconsin because he was shielding the military from any significant cuts and, instead, was making it up from Medicare and Medicaid. That's The Wall Street Journal, Mr. Murdoch, thanking the gentleman from Wisconsin for cutting Medicare and Medicaid, not to balance the budget or reduce the deficit, but to pump up military spending. Similarly, this claim that they are saving $20-some-odd billion in dealing with the liquidation authority is exactly wrong. What the Republican approach says, and we have a roll call vote in our committee which did this, it continues their position that the large financial institutions, financial institutions with more than $50 billion in assets, should pay nothing--nothing--for the costs of cleaning up the mess. In our original bill in 2010, we met CBO's requirement that there be a $20 billion cost by assessing the large financial institutions. To get cloture in the Senate, three Republicans managed to back off. In our committee this year, the Republicans said, We don't like this, and it's going to cost $20 billion. CBO, by the way, says that it costs $20 billion only within the 10-year window. CBO said the $20 billion will be paid out, and it will be repaid by the large financial institutions. I will submit another article from The Wall Street Journal making that point. But here's what the Republicans did: they said, Let's not have the financial institutions be vulnerable. We looked at what CBO said, and we said, okay, CBO says the $20 billion from the financial institutions will come at the end of the 10 years rather than the beginning. So we had an amendment to assess the large financial institutions $20 billion--$29 billion, the CBO said it would cost--at the beginning of the period. The Republicans said the banks were being overtaxed and voted it down on a party-line vote. [From the Wall Street Journal, Apr. 18, 2012] Would Repeal of Key Dodd-Frank Provision Really Save $22 Billion? A House committee later today will vote on a bill being pushed by Republicans to repeal a central plank of the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial law, claiming it would save taxpayers $22 billion over 10 years. The figure triggered some head-scratching around Washington. ``It's tough to understand where the $22 billion comes from--it's a wild assumption since there are currently no cash flows involved with this part of Dodd-Frank,'' Brian Gardner, a Washington analyst with investment bank Keefe, Bruyefte & Woods, in a note to clients. (He's a former GOP Hill aide). ``Republicans on the committee would only eliminate the possibility that the government might have to spend money on liquidating a distress financial firm in the future,'' he wrote, adding that investors shouldn't waste any time thinking about the issue since the GOP bill ``has virtually no shot at passing'' the Senate. The provision in question is the so-called ``orderly liquidation authority'' that gives regulators broad new powers to take control of faltering megafirms and wind them down in an orderly way so that their failure doesn't wreak havoc on the broader economy a la 2008. The provision does allow the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. to borrow money from the Treasury to finance the process--but that money, by law, has to be paid back to Treasury. If the FDIC can't recoup enough by selling off assets of the failed firm, then regulators will levy a fee on the big financial firms left standing over a five-year period. House Republicans say they got the $22 billion figure from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. Looking at that office's 2011 cost estimate for the whole Dodd-Frank bill shows how the CBO came up with the number--and the budget quirks behind it that make it far from a tangible boost to government coffers. First, the CBO assumes regulators have to step in and use their new powers to deal with a teetering financial giant during the next 10 years. That's a pretty big if. Nonetheless, as CBO puts it, while the likelihood of the feds having to use this new process in any year ``is small, the potential costs of liquidating a systemically important firm could be large.'' And experts do say there will be another financial crisis sooner or later. Even so, the CBO's approach of only looking at 10 years at a time is another quirk at play here. As the agency explained in its 2011 document, ``[A] snapshot of cash flows in any given 10-year budget window is unlikely to net to zero because the spending to liquidate a firm would occur before the income was received to cover those costs.'' In other words, the CBO is assuming that the FDIC won't be able to get all the money it needs to pay back Treasury within the 10-year period--but that doesn't mean that the FDIC won't ever get that money. If the law works as it is supposed to, in the end the total cost to taxpayers would be zero--not $22 billion. Of course, there are lots of critics who say that this new resolution authority won't work and either regulators or Congress will decide to bailout financial firms when the next crisis strikes, in which case taxpayers would be on the hook. But the CBO is assuming the law works like it's supposed to.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, to begin, I have read this amendment. And if it were to be law in an hour, it does not appear that it would affect anything that's now happening in the Federal Government. The gentleman said that they were trying to undermine the act and that they should enforce it. In fact, the administration has been very clear: while they disagreed with the act, they would like it repealed, they in fact believe it's unconstitutional, it is now on the books, and nothing is being done in contravention of the Defense of Marriage Act. That is, there are no things now going on where the Federal Government recognizes the rights of same-sex marriage. So I guess my main opposition to this is that the bill is already big enough, but it doesn't add anything in substance. It adds a few words. I would yield if anyone can tell me what the reference is to not enforcing the act. Now it is true the administration declined to defend the act in court, but not defending an act in court in no way means that you are contravening any enforcement. Going to court is a different story. As a matter of fact, the House Republican leadership has voted to go to court to defend it. So I, again, would be glad if someone would tell me. The Defense of Marriage Act says the Federal Government will grant no rights to same- sex married couples that come from marriage. It's not doing that. I agree the administration doesn't like that, but the suggestion that they are undermining the law is simply wrong. Now I understand--and this may be the confusion--that the gentleman originally planned to offer a different amendment, and that amendment, he was told, was not in order. Maybe he changed the amendment and somebody forgot to change the speech, because the speech he gave may apply to the earlier amendment, but it doesn't apply to this one. So it seems to me kind of a waste. It's late in the evening. But the evening is shot anyway. It does not say the administration shouldn't go to court. That is not contravening the Defense of Marriage Act. Contravening the Defense of Marriage Act would be extending benefits. And I want to reassure the gentleman, when I get married in July to Jim, I will not be looking for any Federal benefits. He wouldn't be eligible for my pension, even if I got one--I won't get one. But he wouldn't be eligible if I got one. I am very familiar with this. In fact, nothing being done now by the Federal Government or contemplated by this administration contravenes the Defense of Marriage Act. What the administration says is: We think it's unconstitutional, and we are going to oppose it. Now I know there are some who say--the gentleman from Kansas, I agree, didn't say that--some have said, How dare you to ask the court to throw out a law passed by Congress. You've heard that rhetoric. After all, Congress passed this. How does the court dare to overthrow it? Well, that's an argument I used to hear from my conservative friends a lot more before the health care bill came up. So let's be clear, there are now two major pieces of legislation passed by this Congress--not this particular one--that are being contested and people are asking the U.S. Supreme Court to throw them out. One is the Defense of Marriage Act, one is the health care bill. You can be against, in principle, the court's throwing out an act of Congress as unconstitutional. You can be for it in principle and differ as to the application. But there isn't any way that you can say it is perfectly legitimate to cancel the health care bill through judicial intervention but not to challenge the Defense of Marriage Act. So I assume they're going to want a roll call because they went through all this effort, they'd like to be able to talk about it in campaigns. It literally means nothing because there is no contravention going on now. So I'll be glad to vote against it. If other people vote for it, they can do so. Again, the Defense of Marriage Act says you don't grant benefits to same-sex couples as if they were married. Nobody is doing that. That isn't happening. It isn't planned. It won't happen until and unless the Supreme Court finds unconstitutionality. And refusing to defend an act in court, in the English language, is not contravention. As a matter of fact, it says none of the funds made available may be used in contravention. Well, not going to court is not using funds. Maybe he meant to say none of the funds under this act may be not used in contravention, because we certainly aren't spending by not spending any money. So maybe he meant to say we should spend the money, I don't know. But I understand his original intention was ruled out of order. He had a place in the agenda, so he offered an amendment. But it doesn't mean very much. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Actually, Mr. Chairman, if I could, I would strike many of the words we've heard today. I first want to acknowledge the leadership of my colleague from California. He has a characteristic that is all too rare in politics, an intellectual consistency. We have people on the one hand that talk about freedom of the individual, liberty, and respect for States' rights, but when it comes up against some pet project of theirs, all that goes out the window. Let's be very clear. This is not a case of people advocating that other people smoke marijuana. It is for me an advocacy that we allow people some degree of free choice. I listened to the gentleman from Virginia, and I admire his diligence. But I have to say, I disagreed with almost everything he said. There was one thing he said that I thought was appropriate. He said we shouldn't be debating this at 7:30. I agree. We should have been debating it at 4:20. That would have been a much better time. But other than that, he says, What about 15-year- olds, they'll see marijuana centers. Well, they'll see liquor stores. They'll see many more liquor stores than marijuana centers. The notion that because something is inappropriate for a teenager or a child, adults should not be allowed to use it, is mindlessness. You can't run a society that says we're not going to let a 15-year-old see the things a 15-year-old can't do. Liquor stores would be a great example. I have been disappointed on this point with the Obama administration. The Clinton administration was quite sensible on this. The Bush administration slipped back, and I had hoped that with the Obama administration it would be more sensible. The gentleman from Virginia said, Well, this is a great source of money for the Mexicans. Sure, because we won't let people grow it in America. To the extent that people are buying medical marijuana from Mexican drug cartels, I think, is a somewhat overdone thing with regard to this. That's because we have had people refusing to allow them to grow it here in America for that use. People say--again, I'm surprised by some of my conservative friends-- there is no medical value. The Federal Government now becomes the arbiter and tells the States you may not make that judgment that there is medical value. We know an awful lot of people think it has medical value for them. As to addiction and the notion that if you get all these drugs together, what marijuana has in common with Oxycontin--which the gentleman from Virginia mentioned--and other drugs is that we treat them the same. They are not the same in any rational way. They're not the same in addictive prospects. They're not the same except we treat them the same. And we're the ones that by this foolish policy--that I regret the administration I supported is engaging in--give people the notion that they're the same thing. It's a very simple point. People in the States have voted that marijuana should be available for people who want to use it for medicinal purposes, and the States are then in charge of setting up ways to deal with it. We have people out of their ideological opposition announcing that they will not be allowed to do that, that they will tell people it has no medical use despite the testimony of so many who think it does. This again is a form that I thought we learned didn't work, and it's prohibition of the worst sort. And by the way, it is going to lead to very ineffective law enforcement because we are a free country. You cannot impose, in a free society like ours, a regime of law enforcement that the public rejects without a great deal of repression. State by State by State, the people of the States have voted to allow this. So when we send the Federal agents in to disregard what the State did, to disregard State law, of course you're going to engender resistance; of course you're going to engender people going around. And I would just close by saying after listening to this debate, I think tonight C SPAN has merged with Turner Classic Movies because ``Reefer Madness,'' that great movie from the thirties, appears to be being shown on both channels. This notion that because 15-year-olds are watching us talk about how people who are ill and in pain should be allowed with the vote of the State to get marijuana prescribed by a doctor, and that's going to lead a 15-year-old to go out and do it, makes no logical sense. As I said, if you're worried about what 15-year-olds can see, they can see X-rated movies that are being advertised; they can see cigarettes being sold widely; they can see alcohol. They can see all manner of things that we don't want them to do. This is a very sensible amendment. No one has shown, let me say finally--and you know the DEA, they want to do this. I have not seen the evidence that says that medical marijuana has led to any problem. I haven't seen it linked to crime. I haven't seen it linked to anything negative. What we have, frankly, are some prejudices being used to interfere with people's rights. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Will the gentleman yield to me to help support his amendment? I am in support of the gentleman's amendment. Will the gentleman yield to me?

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I thank the gentleman. I strongly support the amendment. The gentleman from Washington has the regional councils confused with the people who fish. There's a regional split here. If the people on the west coast are happy with this, good luck to them. Here's what happened. In the Magnuson-Stevens Act passed in the lame duck of 2006, we said that provisions that would provide for these kinds of limitations were to be voted on by the people in the fishery. There would have to be a vote of the people in the fishery. What happened was, in Washington, they decided that there were areas where they wouldn't get the fishermen to vote for it--maybe on the west coast, they would; on the east coast, they wouldn't. So they invented--Washington did--catch shares, which is a way to have exactly the same impact as what we have in the bill, but without a referendum. We went to court. The judge said, Well, you've got a good argument, but I've got to go with the administrator. If this amendment passes, if the people in the fishery--the fishermen--want to vote for something that will, in effect, be catch shares, they can put it into effect. And if they vote ``no,'' it will be no. The regional councils, they are not only fishermen, they are appointees. NMFS has had a major impact. So let's be very clear: If you think the fishermen ought to be able to decide, that's what the law says. This catch shares is an invention to get around the law. If this amendment passes, catch shares will not be around, but the law that we passed in 2006 that allows for the fishermen to vote if they want to implement it will still be there. If people on the west coast want it, fine.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. No, excuse me. That is what the amendment says. The amendment says you can't have what they call catch shares. If it passes, you will go back to the underlying Magnuson-Stevens Act, which did come out of committee. Do you know who amended the bill? Not here in the appropriations process, NMFS. If there are no catch shares, that means you can't do this without a vote of the fishermen. You will go back to the underlying statute, Magnuson-Stevens, which will say that if the people in the fishery want to vote for it, they can; otherwise, it doesn't happen. I thank my friend for yielding.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, one of the most important examples Israel gives to the world is how an independent judiciary, committed to the rule of law, can act even in a nation in which security considerations are paramount--as they have had to be in Israel since 1948, when it was attacked at the very moment of its birth. Earlier this week, the Supreme Court of Israel issued a ruling that Migron, an illegal settlement established in the West Bank, must be dismantled and the occupants removed. While it is clear that some of the areas that are now reserved for Jewish citizens of Israel should remain in place after a two-state peace agreement is signed, these are the areas immediately adjacent to Israel, especially in and around Jerusalem. Those settlements far from that area should never have been allowed to be established, and they should now be removed. Those of us who believe strongly in Israel's right to a continued existence as a secure, democratic, independent state have a particular responsibility to point out that those who create and defend these settlements may undermine the chances of achieving such a result. There are strong public policy reasons for objecting to these unauthorized, illegal settlements, as we learned when the Obama administration was so successful in blocking a U.N. vote to recognize Palestinian statehood. The defeat of that effort, led by the Obama administration's aggressive diplomacy, was a far better result for Israel in the U.N. than we have seen in many years. And it is clear that it was because President Obama has expressed his disagreement with the existence of many of these settlements that he had the credibility to achieve that diplomatic victory. But the Supreme Court of Israel is not motivated by these political considerations. Rather it is committed to the rule of law--a strong distinction between Israel and most of its neighbors. Given the pressures that are brought to bear against the Judiciary in the name of security, a phenomenom we have seen in our own country at various times, the decision by the Israeli Supreme Court to order the dismantlement of an illegal settlement deserves praise and it is important that the Netanyahu administration carry out this court order. It would be a gift to critics of Israel if there were to be any faltering in the Israeli Government's standing behind this decision of its Supreme Court. Mr. Speaker, the New York Times, in an editorial on March 28, noted this, and because the example of a Supreme Court, in a nation that is engaged in a serious effort to protect itself against external enemies, is standing up for the rule of law in the face of pressures to the contrary is so important, I ask that the editorial from the New York Times, entitled ``Israel's Top Court vs. Outposts'' be printed here. [From the New York Times, Mar. 25, 2012] Israel's Top Court Orders Settlers to Leave Outpost (By Ethan Bronner) Jerusalem.--Israel's Supreme Court on Sunday ordered a West Bank settlers' outpost built on private Palestinian land to be dismantled by Aug. 1, rejecting a government compromise with the settlers that would have allowed them to stay put for another three years. The decision was much anticipated, because the panel of three judges who decided the case included the court's conservative new chief justice, Asher Grunis, and because the case involved the politically explosive issue of moving settlers in the face of potentially violent resistance. Whether the government will remove the 50 families living in the outpost before the deadline will also be closely monitored. In their ruling, the judges chided the government for having failed to evacuate the outpost in accordance with an earlier high court decision. ``This is a necessary component of the rule of law to which all are subject as part of Israel's values as a Jewish and democratic state,'' the decision said. The case concerns Migron, a settler outpost near the West Bank city of Ramallah. Migron is one of the largest of dozens of small enclaves that have a different status under Israeli law than the 120 full-blown settlements in the West Bank. Although the larger settlements, home to about 330,000 Israeli Jews, are considered in violation of international law by a vast majority of foreign governments, Israel views them as legitimate; not so for the smaller outposts, which Israel views as illegal because they went up without its authorization. Despite that status, most of the outposts have been provided with basic infrastructure by the government. Nearly a decade ago, Israel promised the United States that it would dismantle a number of the outposts in preparation for a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The Palestinians want to build a state on land that is now partly occupied by the settlers. But almost no outposts have actually come down, and Israeli-Palestinian negotiations are frozen. Meanwhile, Migron stands out among the outposts because its land is not simply part of a theoretical future state of Palestine but also because it has been shown to belong to private Palestinian owners. The state did not dispute that finding, although the settlers say that no proof of ownership was provided. Palestinians represented by an Israeli lawyer took the case to the Supreme Court, along with Peace Now, a left-wing Israeli group that opposes the settlements. The case dragged on for years, but last summer the court said the outpost had to be dismantled by the end of March 2012, a deadline the new ruling extends to Aug. 1. The government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, which is a strong defender of the settlers and wanted to avoid a confrontation, suggested a compromise--let the residents of Migron remain until a new authorized community could be built nearby where they could relocate upon its completion in 2015. The plaintiffs returned to the court last week and told the court that to accept such a deal would be to flout the rule of law. One of the three justices who heard last week's arguments, Salim Joubran, indicated the court's leanings at the time: ``You say the outpost will move in three years, but I know this type of behavior. Three years will inevitably turn into eight.'' Right-wing legislators said Sunday that they would introduce legislation to legalize Migron and other outposts. Dani Dayan, a leader of Israel's settler movement, said that the court's ruling would empower the violent extremists in his community who have long argued that there was no point in seeking compromise. Tzaly Reshef, a founder of Peace Now and a lawyer, said the decision would not change the fact that ``supporters of the settlements remain in power.'' But he called it ``very meaningful in terms of the constitutional system in Israel.'' Mr. Reshef said that had the case been decided the other way, ``it would have been almost the end of the existence of the courts as the protectors of the rule of law in this country, as well as the ultimate victory of the settlers.'' He continued, ``The government, threatened with violence if it tries to remove settlers, tried to convince the court that it should pull back from its decision, which is based on the basic right of ownership of private property.'' The next test, Mr. Reshef said, would be whether the government is ``able to change facts on the ground.'' Mr. Netanyahu said the government would honor the court's decision and uphold the rule of law.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I was interested to hear the gentleman from Georgia, a member of the Appropriations Committee, complain about this duplication. Apparently, during the 6 years when the Republican Party controlled the White House, the House, and the Senate, they didn't find any of them. They're late to see them, but better late than never. The other concern I had was, he talked about duplication at the Defense Department in procurement. But this budget protects the Pentagon and, in fact, increases its spending. Now, we have been told we should not be talking about cutting Medicare because that's not what's happening. So let me cite The Wall Street Journal, rarely accused of distorting the Republicans' position. In fact, they are defending the chairman of the Budget Committee against the right wing. And here's what The Wall Street Journal says, because we're talking here not about cutting spending but shifting it. The Wall Street Journal editorial yesterday: ``Mr. Ryan's budget would cancel the additional defense cuts of $55 billion a year''--out of $700 billion--``under the sequester and replace them with savings in the entitlements. His Medicare and Medicaid reforms would generate future savings many times greater than would be gained from gutting the defense budget.'' Now, some of us don't think that pulling out of Afghanistan, with the corruption there, quicker than is now planned would be gutting the defense budget. I know my Republican colleagues like to be critical of welfare in some cases, but they continue to support the greatest welfare program in the history of the world, the American taxpayer subsidy of the defense budgets of the wealthy nations of Western Europe. But let me again read what The Wall Street Journal says. Here's how they characterize the Ryan budget: Mr. Ryan's budget would cancel the additional defense cuts of $55 billion a year and replace them with savings in the entitlements. Social Security and Medicare. So in this respect, at least, we're not talking about cutting spending, but shifting it from the military into the Defense Department. And that's why the AARP has written so persuasively that his plan would, in fact, destroy Medicare.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, whenever a legislative body deals with measures to prohibit or lessen discrimination against any group, opponents who do not wish to affirm that they are prejudiced against that group often assert that there will be negative consequences if the antidiscrimination measure is adopted. Most recently, we heard dire predictions from many supporters of the policy of discriminating against gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender members of the military that allowing these patriotic Americans to serve their country openly would be terribly disruptive. Apparently, there were many who believed that young Americans who serve in the military shared their prejudice. Despite their arguments, the repeal was voted by the Congress in 2010 and very efficiently put into place by Defense Secretary Panetta after full consultation with the Military Chiefs of Staff. It has now been about six months since the ban on honesty among gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender military personnel was dropped. And, as in many other cases--for example our laws protecting people with disabilities, or our laws banning discrimination against women--the predictions of social chaos from opponents of fairness have proven to be baseless. Stars and Stripes, the widely regarded newspaper that serves our military, and has a long record of independence and integrity, summed it up in an article on March 19th as follows: ``Six months after the military ended the controversial ``don't ask, don't tell'' law barring gays from serving openly, Pentagon officials and gay rights advocates say the policy change has largely been a non-issue, with few complaints and no major headaches resulting from the new rules.'' It is true that there are some of those who were opposed to this end to a discriminatory policy who continue to argue that there would have been problems if the Pentagon had not somehow mysteriously suppressed it. The notion that there is any significant degree of dissatisfaction but there is no way that anyone has been able to voice it--even anonymously--is of course highly suspect. The fact is that is turns out that the young people in the military do not share the prejudices of some of their would-be defenders, and the notion that military effectiveness has in any way been damaged, or that we would see people leaving the military, have been shown to have no basis. Mr. Speaker, because it is important to have this further example of the inaccuracy of the predictions that are made when we seek to ban discrimination against particular groups, and because this was such an important issue debated in this Congress, I ask that the article from Stars and Stripes be printed here. [From the Stars and Stripes, Mar. 19, 2012] (By Leo Shane III) Six months after repeal, military says DADT died quietly Washington.--Sgt. Pepe Johnson was surprised by the reaction he received when his fellow soldiers learned that he is gay. ``They've pretty much shrugged it off,'' said Johnson, who rejoined the Army last fall after nearly a decade away. ``Most of them were wondering why I had a nine-year gap in service. When I told them it was because of `don't ask, don't tell,' they shrugged it off. ``That was a pleasant surprise.'' Six months after the military dropped the controversial ``don't ask, don't tell'' law barring gays from serving openly, Pentagon officials and gay rights advocates say the policy change has largely been a non-issue, with few complaints and no major headaches resulting from the new rules. Pentagon spokeswoman Eileen Lainez said the repeal is ``proceeding smoothly across the Department of Defense,'' which officials there credit to the ``enforcement of standards by our military leaders'' and ``servicemembers' adherence to core values that include discipline and respect.'' Officials at the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, a pro-repeal group which offers free legal assistance to troops on discrimination issues, said they've heard only a few minor complaints from military members about the implementation of the repeal. ``We had thought this would be largely a non-event, and that has been the case,'' said Aubrey Sarvis, executive director of the group. ``I think the new regulations permitting gays and lesbians to serve are unambiguous, and the commands have all made it abundantly clear that this is the direction the force is going.'' Military leaders have seen pushback from conservative groups on some high-profile post-repeal stories--such as a picture of a gay Marine kissing his boyfriend which circulated earlier this month--but haven't faced any lawsuits or mass resignations predicted by some opponents. Last month's White House dinner honoring Iraq War veterans included several same-sex couples among the invitees, but in their remarks military leaders didn't even note that such a public display would have resulted in those troops' dismissal just a few months earlier. Johnson was booted out of the Army in 2003 under ``don't ask, don't tell.'' After he shared his secret with some friends, others in his unit started grilling them about his sexual orientation. Feeling pressure from both his friends and others, Johnson eventually came clean to his superiors. As the political winds changed last year, Johnson said he was speaking with recruiters about returning even before the repeal went into effect last September. ``Their biggest issue was asking when I could start, not worrying about my personal life,'' he said. ``There has been no backlash, nothing to worry about.'' Repeal opponents remain skeptical. Elaine Donnelly, president of the conservative Center for Military Readiness, said plenty of troops remain opposed to serving with openly gay colleagues, but fear they'll lose their job if they object to the military's new pro-gay agenda. ``The entire administration . . . has imposed `zero tolerance' policies against persons who are not enthusiastic supporters of LGBT law,'' she said. ``This is what we predicted, but the effects will not be seen quickly, especially in an election year.'' Much of the repeal fight has already shifted to the next rights battlefield, whether same-sex couples should receive the same housing and medical benefits as their straight peers. Sarvis said the current benefits rules create two different classes of servicemembers. Opponents argue that the rights groups are trying to use the military to force radical social changes. Meanwhile, Donnelly said that she has heard from a number of troops unhappy with the changes, who are simply waiting for their contracts to expire before leaving the service. That could cause major problems in coming months and years, she said. Petty Officer 1st Class Jeremy Johnson, a member of active- duty gay-rights group OutServe, said he anticipates more problems in the future, although nothing to the extent of Donnelly's predictions. Many of the gay troops he knows have not yet talked about their personal lives with their work colleagues, somewhat delaying the cultural impact of the repeal. ``This was never about having people come flying out of the closet,'' he said. ``It was about knowing you can't be fired for being found out. There's going to be a natural transition as more people become comfortable with the idea.'' Johnson, who was forced from the military in 2007, became the first openly gay person to reenlist after the repeal was finalized. He said his commanders have warned him that he could be singled out for his public role, but so far it hasn't caused any real conflicts. ``I anticipate that this isn't over, but I don't anticipate major problems, either,'' he said.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Chairman, I rise to claim the time that would go to someone in opposition if there is anybody in opposition, which there does not appear to be.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Chair, I support this amendment. I am pleased that we have been able to come together in a process that is providing some improvement. As I've said, I think there have been people in both the executive and legislative branches that have exaggerated the impact of these, but they are helpful. I do want to make one point, though, that it is true that the President has been one of those who has been a proponent of this--it's been a very bipartisan and very cooperative process--and there is a Statement of Administration Policy in support of the bills. I do want to make it clear because there will be some subsequent amendments that I think will be controversial. This one is not. The next two are actually not, I believe. But then there are one, two, three, four that may be. I want to make it very clear that the President's Statement of Administration Policy, which supports the bills--or the bill, with the package of bills within it--in general is in no way--and I speak for the administration on this, having talked to them--an expression of opposition to the later amendments, none of the later amendments--and Members will debate them one way or the other, although I deeply regret that the Rules Committee only gave us 5 minutes to debate controversial amendments on each side. I think that's a denigration of process. I would note we're probably going to finish up before noon today, or maybe 12:30. The notion that we couldn't have taken 20 minutes or even a half hour to debate a couple of these significant issues seems to me to be very, very regrettable. But I did want to make it clear that there are amendments that will be coming up that are not either supported or opposed by the administration; that is, they are not in opposition to the general approach. And since we only have 5 minutes, I will take a little of this time to note that, for example, there is one from Mr. Capuano, who is a very thoughtful student here, to make sure that when we talk about holders of record, that that's not a subterfuge, that the holders of record, we are talking about limiting the number, that you don't get a whole lot of people listed as one holder of record. I think that amendment by Mr. Capuano is wholly in the spirit of this bill. Mr. Peters' amendment, one of the things that we had talked about, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Peters), is to talk about the job impact. These have been listed as a ``jobs'' bill. We have one of those foolish acronyms of which I'm not very fond. They call this the ``JOBS''--whatever. Well, Mr. Peters wants to know how many jobs are really going to be created. I think that's very helpful. Similarly, the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps) wants to know about what the real impact is. So I will reserve the balance of my time at this point, but I did want to make clear that several of the subsequent amendments are not in any way derogatory to this bill. In fact, I say, look, if this bill does what it says, let's know about it. I reserve the balance of my time. I believe I have the right to close.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Well, I will take the rest of our time to say this--and this is another relevant issue: this is a bill which does unusual things to reduce what the SEC will have to do in some of these areas, not primarily that save time for the SEC, but in fact to try to make it less burdensome for the companies that are involved. But with that having been said, the reduction in SEC duties, which are really incidental to this bill, in no way removes the need for adequate funding for the SEC. One of the things that has been troubling to many of us is a tendency on the part of the majority to refuse the adequate funding to the SEC that it needs to carry out its new responsibilities. That's especially troubling because the SEC funds do not come from the taxpayers. The SEC is funded by a fee paid by those who participate in the securities business. In fact, as we are doing here, we are exempting the smaller people. So when we have the largest financial institutions in this country paying a relatively small fee, in fact, an absolutely small fee, we can fund the SEC adequately. What we have seen is a disturbing refusal on the part of the majority in this House to give the SEC the funds it needs. We gave the SEC increased powers over investor protection with fiduciary responsibilities over shareholder rights. We gave them increased powers, particularly over derivatives, which had gone unregulated for so long. We have had some criticism of the SEC for not moving more promptly. We have had some criticisms of the SEC for not doing a better job of enforcement. None of those are helped by starving them of funds. So when we have a situation where the majority does the financial community the favor of withholding funds that the administration has asked for for the SEC--and we've asked that it be funded at that adequate level--and by doing so not only damages the enforcement capabilities of the SEC, but gives an unjustified present to the largest financial institutions--investment houses and others--I think that a very grave error has been made. So I welcome the fact that we are making some minor reductions in the SEC burdens here as an incidence of trying to help the companies, but that does not justify fairly and adequately to fund the SEC out of fees assessed on the companies. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I appreciate the gentleman from Texas selectively quoting me. I do not want to pile on studies, but this one makes a great deal of sense.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support a very good recommit motion, but I want to clarify one point. Reference was made in the debate to this bill being one that would relieve small businesses of regulations imposed by this administration recently. Let me be very clear. With the exception of Say-on-Pay, which I strongly support, the administrative and regulatory issues addressed here were not imposed by this administration, were not a result of the bill. These are longstanding things that predate this administration. So I'm for the bill, but I wanted to clear up that misconception. This is not any reaction to anything that was done recently; it's making accommodation for these small businesses with regard to things that are of long standing.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, this is a perfectly nice bill, but things are sometimes judged in comparison. It is being hailed as a bigger bill than it is, but that's what happens when you grade on a curve as we grade on a curve. One of the great philosophers of the 20th century was a man named Henny Youngman. One of his philosophical bits of wisdom was expressed in the question and answer: How's your wife? Compared to what? Well, compared to the output of this House so far, this is a very, very, very major bill. Compared to our economy in general, it's a good bill, but of no immediate significance in terms of jobs, and useful for the future. But as I said, I think it's important just getting pumped up a little bit so we can avoid here, as a collective body, the charge that we haven't done anything. I do have one criticism of the rule, and I had expressed this hope yesterday and I was frustrated. A number of amendments were made in order, and I appreciate that, but every single amendment is to be debated for only 10 minutes. That's unworthy of a deliberative body. There are important questions here that are involved in these issues. And if you think these bills are important, then the amendments to them are important. Now, that's within the context of support. In most cases, we are talking about people who support the concept but have some differences about what should be there. But to say that every amendment gets debated for only 10 minutes, 5 minutes on each side, is to denigrate the deliberative function to a point which is of great concern to me. It is not as if we've been so busy that we couldn't carve out time for 20 minutes or even a half hour of debate. So I regret the dumbing down of the House, which is represented by saying that no issue will be debated for more than 10 minutes. Then I only have one other question of a procedural sort as the ranking member of the Financial Services Committee. Most of these bills have been through the committee. There were six bills; four have even passed the House. Two bills, I was told, were from the committee. But one of the bills, H.R. 4088, it's got a new sponsor, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Quayle), and we've never seen that in our committee. I've checked. That bill was introduced February 24 or something. It's never had a hearing. It's never been through committee. So why are we getting a bill on the floor now that has never been seen in our committee? I would yield to the gentleman from the Rules Committee.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Well, I have read the bill. But to be told that we're going to, in a party that says they're devoted to regular order, bring out a bill--H.R. 4088 has had no committee consideration whatsoever; the other bills have, the other five. But it's never been brought up in a hearing; it's never been in subcommittee; it's never been in committee. The notion that it's a good bill and therefore should be immune from any committee process is very discouraging. This is a bill that's only been in existence for a couple of weeks. The gentleman says, well, it's a good bill; read it. Well, then I guess we don't need committees. We don't need to do anything. If it's a good bill, you read it. But the process is supposed to be one where these things go through some vetting. So I am disappointed that we have a rule that brings a bill to the floor that has literally had no committee consideration whatsoever--brand-new bill, apparently, because it's got a brand-new sponsor. We've seen nothing like this. There have been some other bills that we've had, but I've seen no bill from the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Quayle). I've seen no bill like H.R. 4088 that hasn't had a hearing, that hasn't been to committee. At the same time, the Rules Committee thinks that we can take all these interesting questions--should there or shouldn't there be an examination, say, on pay? Is the billion number right?--and debate them all in only 10 minutes, 5 minutes on each side. That hardly serves the deliberative process.